ArticleBMC medicine2013
Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: explanation and elaboration.
Article in BMC medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
65 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Narratives and tensions in the ethics of human proteomics literature: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Recommendations Around Frameworks for Evaluating Scientific Validity in Nutritional Genomics.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Pooled it
- Personalized respiratory medicine: exploring the horizon, addressing the issues. Summary of a BRN-AJRCCM workshop held in Barcelona on June 12, 2014.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Review
- Ectopic Olfactory Receptors in Oral Health and Disease: Molecular Links Between Chemosensing, Tissue Repair, Inflammation, and Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Clinical peptidomics for respiratory diseases: matrices, workflows, and translation towards treatable traits, with a focus on COPD.Clinical proteomics · 2026Review
- Clinical Significance of Tumor Grade in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Integration of longitudinal load-bearing tissue MRI radiomics and neural network to predict knee osteoarthritis incidence.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2025Article
- The current landscape of personalised preventive approaches for non-communicable diseases: A scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
- Proteomics and Metabolomics in Varicocele-Associated Male Infertility: Advancing Precision Diagnostics and Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Omics-based biomarkers as useful tools in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease clinical practice: How far are we?World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Gene expression signature predicts radiation sensitivity in cell lines using the integral of dose-response curve.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Editorial: Mass spectrometry-based proteomics in drug discovery and development.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Finding the (biomarker-defined) subgroup of patients who benefit from a novel therapy: No time for a game of hide and seek.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2023Article
- Radiomics approaches to predict PD-L1 and PFS in advanced non-small cell lung patients treated with immunotherapy: a multi-institutional study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Drawbacks of Artificial Intelligence and Their Potential Solutions in the Healthcare Sector.Biomedical materials & devices (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Review
- Criteria for the translation of radiomics into clinically useful tests.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2023Review
- Article
- Cross-Platform Omics Prediction procedure: a statistical machine learning framework for wider implementation of precision medicine.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Article
5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High-throughput 'omics' technologies that generate molecular profiles for biospecimens have been extensively used in preclinical studies to reveal molecular subtypes and elucidate the biological mechanisms of disease, and in retrospective studies on clinical specimens to develop mathematical models to predict clinical endpoints. Nevertheless, the translation of these technologies into clinical tests that are useful for guiding management decisions for patients has been relatively slow. It can be difficult to determine when the body of evidence for an omics-based test is sufficiently comprehensive and reliable to support claims that it is ready for clinical use, or even that it is ready for definitive evaluation in a clinical trial in which it may be used to direct patient therapy. Reasons for this difficulty include the exploratory and retrospective nature of many of these studies, the complexity of these assays and their application to clinical specimens, and the many potential pitfalls inherent in the development of mathematical predictor models from the very high-dimensional data generated by these omics technologies. Here we present a checklist of criteria to consider when evaluating the body of evidence supporting the clinical use of a predictor to guide patient therapy. Included are issues pertaining to specimen and assay requirements, the soundness of the process for developing predictor models, expectations regarding clinical study design and conduct, and attention to regulatory, ethical, and legal issues. The proposed checklist should serve as a useful guide to investigators preparing proposals for studies involving the use of omics-based tests. The US National Cancer Institute plans to refer to these guidelines for review of proposals for studies involving omics tests, and it is hoped that other sponsors will adopt the checklist as well.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.